Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official
by UniqueDomains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Similar-sales aggregate of one name and how many endings its word sold on

ud_get_name_comps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves similar-sales aggregates for a domain name, including count, median USD price, tier, and number of endings the word sold on. Use it to compare what similar names sold for.

Instructions

The similar-sales aggregate of one name and how many endings its word sold on. Use it when someone asks what similar names sold for, or on how many endings the word sold. Pass name (such as get.plumbing).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ud_get_name_comps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA full domain name on an ending the catalog holds, lowercased, IDN as punycode. A bare word, a subdomain, an e-mail address or an unknown ending answers 400 `validation_failed` with `reason` and `suggestion`.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: tier, count, medianUsd, endingsSoldOn.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNoThe day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
linksNoLinks of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only an input-format example ("such as get.plumbing"), which is minor context rather than new behavioral disclosure. Nothing is contradicted, but little is added beyond the annotations and the existing output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the use-case cue is front-loaded after the purpose statement. The opening sentence is a near-duplicate of the title and its phrase "how many endings its word sold on" is slightly awkward, but nothing is extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, rich annotations and full parameter documentation, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, given more than thirty siblings including several market-sales and word-endings tools, the missing differentiation is a real completeness gap for an agent choosing between them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `name` and `fields` are already fully documented in the input schema, including the 400 `validation_failed` behavior for bare words, subdomains, e-mails and unknown endings. The description's only addition is a sample value, which does not extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the title almost verbatim ("the similar-sales aggregate of one name and how many endings its word sold on") without a clean verb+resource framing, so the purpose reads as a noun phrase rather than an action. It does convey two returned aggregates (similar-sales value and endings-sold count), but it never distinguishes this from the crowd of adjacent market-sales and word-endings tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete when-to-use cues: "Use it when someone asks what similar names sold for, or on how many endings the word sold," which maps directly to the two things the tool returns. It stops short of any exclusion or named alternative (e.g. when to prefer the general market-sales or word-endings lookups), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools